It is not the purpose of the editors of theMagazineto espouse any particular pedagogical policy. Articles may appear in the paper which advocate new policies or radical changes of method in the school or college curriculum; but such papers express the views of the contributors only, and not necessarily of the editorial staff of the paper. Rather it is their wish to make the paper a mirror of the best thought and practice in the profession, and to this end they will welcome correspondence and contributions upon all phases of questions arising in the teaching of history. Let us have a frank and full discussion of the problems facing the teacher, and of the best way of solving the problems; not fads or hobbies, but sound experience and strong pedagogical ideals. The editors invite the coöperation of their readers in making the paper a “clearing-house for ideas in the profession.”
It may be a matter of surprise that a paper devoted largely to the interests of teachers of history in secondary schools and colleges should print in one number nearly five pages of matter relating to history in elementary schools. Yet there should be no need of an apology. Were not the several parts of the American educational system so independent of one another, our secondary and college teachers of history would not pride themselves upon their ignorance of conditions in the elementary schools. Because organically or politically there is little correlation among the three parts of the system, each part attempts to ignore the others, rejecting suggestions concerning its own work, and grudgingly and condescendingly giving advice concerning the others. With a few notable exceptions, several of whom appear as contributors to this number of theMagazine, college men in America have kept sedulously away from the problems of history teaching in the elementary school, or if they have turned their gaze upon the schools, it has been to seek a market for a new elementary history textbook.
Yet the elementary school needs the best thought that the nation can give to it; not the thought of elementary school men alone, but the clearness and directness and thoroughness which come so frequently with college training. It is superciliousness or inertia which leads a college instructor to say that he cannot realize the problems of the elementary school, and then to send his children to a class taught by a young girl fresh from the normal school or high school. It was not thus that the schedules for history in the Prussian or French schools were made. It is not by thus leaving the determination of policy to weaker employees that great corporations succeed. And how much more valuable are our children than corporate wealth!
The report of the Committee of Eight is beyond doubt the most important feature of the year in the teaching of history in America. It deserves to rank with the report of the Committee of Seven, and its influence may well be even greater. The report is remarkable for its sanity, its absence of theorizing, its understanding of the mind of the child at several ages, its clearness and general helpfulness. Not content with merely outlining the field of history for each grade, the committee has realized the weakness of the teacher, and has constructed a course of study for her, and has even gone so far as to advise the emphasis and amount of time to be given to each subject. Schedule-makers have previously had no advice from historians upon these points; they have been left severely alone to fix their days and hours and subjects as they might think best. The report changes all this by combining the scholarly knowledge of the historian with the skill of the pedagogical student and with the worldly wisdom of the schedule maker.
Of particular significance and originality is the arrangement of topics by years in such a manner that the student receives something new in each grade. Even although all the work centers about the history of the United States, yet there is no deadening repetition year after year. The topics are carefully selected for each grade with a view to increasing difficulty with the advancing years of the student. Perhaps no one feature of the report marks a more distinct advance than this arrangement.
Not only should the report have a strong influence upon the arrangement of the elementary history course, but it should also lead to a great improvement in the instruction of history. Not every teacher can meet the requirements set by the committee; the result will be a wider adoption of the “group” or “department” system, by which the teacher is given charge of one subject or of a group of allied topics, such as English and history, or geography and nature study. Such a division of labor is in accord with the tendencies of the day; it is in the interests of superior work in all subjects; and it means increased mental development not for the child alone, but for the teacher as well. The report would deserve a hearty welcome if it did no more than advance the cause of the departmental or group teacher.
It will do much more than this. It will add dignity to the work in history; it will give school administrators an ideal of work in the subject; and best of all, it will give the children of the nation a course in history which will be stimulating and of definite cultural value. Teachers of history and school administrators should unite to see that the new plan is given a fair test under the best possible circumstances. High school and college teachers should join with elementary teachers in endorsing this plan for raising the standard of history teaching in America.